How the NBN will change education: Australia’s “Last Spike” moment

This article is by Adam Shoemaker,Deputy Vice Chancellor (Education) at Monash University. It was first published on The Conversation and is re-published here with permission.

analysis When I grew up in Canada there was a famous painting on the wall of nearly every primary school classroom. It was called “The Last Spike” and it depicted the final railway track connection being hammered in to create a true east-west transport corridor. In a real sense, it was the making of Canada; a nation-building project.

The same can be said of the National Broadband Network (NBN) today. Once completed, it will connect all Australians as never before – in communications, healthcare, news, media, science, invention and, particularly, in education. And it will do so at all levels.

In fact, its importance for the future of primary and secondary education is only just beginning to be appreciated. Remember the ethos of that famous Australian invention, the outback School of the Air. For students in regional Australia, it meant connection and access to educational opportunities unbound by geography.

What pedal-powered short-wave radio was to remote stations of the 1950s – a direct link to the world of learning – the NBN will be to the children of the next decade. But the difference is profound. It will be multipoint and immersive, “many way” instead of two-way. It will make a baseline of high-quality learning available to every individual, every class – while teachers will be able to collaborate with each other across state and territory boundaries as never before.

They will be able to work across states to assess new forms of curriculum and to give them “local engagement”. They will be able to develop their own pedagogical skills through peer-to-peer communities. And when students from Alligator River want to enter a science fair with young people in Deloraine, they will be able to share a “digital project” enabling Year 8 students from the Northern Territory and Tasmania to work together in a whole new way.

Imagine the open-access impulse of EdX or Coursera, blend it (literally) with the National Curriculum project in Australia and then one has an inkling of what is possible. But between “possible” and “actual” lies the challenge. Some call it access, others the “digital gap”. But it is not a simple matter of urban versus rural opportunities or outback versus city access; this misreads the situation.

In fact, there is already a huge “digital divide” in this country. It starts right outside our university campus gates – not hundreds of kilometres from them. Serious inequities already exist. The NBN will address them head-on – and it will solve them.

Every day, citizens travel past tertiary campuses without realising just how fortunate those inside are: university staff and students have access to superbroadband unlike anything most Australians have ever seen or experienced. For most people, AARNET3 (Australia’s Academic and Research Network) is a mysterious acronym; for us, it is an essential engine for our education and research. It is so customary that its enormous benefits are almost taken for granted.

But it is well worth remembering what these benefits are. For example, at Monash we have special, purpose-designed secondary schools on three of our six Victorian campuses. Those schools are public-purpose, taxpayer-funded institutions.

At the John Monash Science School on our Clayton campus, all of its 600 students have a student card just like our undergraduates. They have access to our library, to the Web of Science, to Elsevier, to Humanities Online. They can share their homework assignments through Google Docs; they can collaborate via videochat. They can connect with more than 100 television news channels from around the world — including Al Jazeera in both Arabic and English; BBC World and CNN — at no cost. They can download at 100 megabits per second — the gold standard for academic work.

The learning opportunities are superb. Consequently (and by design) innovative curriculum invention happens all the time – with school and university staff working together to mint new forms of pedagogy. But a school located just down the road – even one with students who are equally motivated and talented – has very few of these privileges. This has to change.

The genius of the NBN is that it will break down that divide all across Australia. Instead of a digital “rain shadow” the whole nation will have equitable access. Instead of the frustration of strangled speeds, poor image clarity and slow (or no) service, an NBN society will be fundamentally more fair and productive.

But this will not happen without careful planning, and without a major series of moves to prioritise access to educational projects during the NBN rollout. The way forward is for universities to partner with secondary schools, with TAFE institutions and with the private sector to model the new face of learning.

Ultimately, then, the NBN is all about people; not about technology. It is about being able to train, inspire and educate students of whatever age to work together as never before. And it is about devising solutions to real challenges in an interdisciplinary way.

The role of public and educational libraries will be a crucial too. If the word “portal” means anything, it means democratic access to that wider digital world; libraries are placed centre-stage in that process. Meanwhile, every university and TAFE in the nation should be considering the establishment of digitally-enabled secondary schools on their campuses.

The NBN project is one which is beyond politics and it deserves bipartisan support in every state and territory. The “last spike” moment is now.

182 COMMENTS

The Canadian railways of the 1860’s may be a very apt analogy for the NBN Project… from Wikipedia.

Heavy expansion of the rail system did not get under way until the Guarantee Act of 1849 that guaranteed bond returns on all railways over 121 km (75 mi). This led to rapid expansion of railways in the Canadas, sometimes excessive growth as uneconomic lines were built since the government guaranteed profits.

This proved disastrous for government finances, however, and the Canadas were all but bankrupted by the subsidies. The largest rail project of this period was also a disaster. The Grand Trunk Railway linking Montreal to Sarnia was finished in 1860, but was vastly mired in debt. In exchange for bailing out the company the government escaped its guarantee on the railway bonds.

I believe hes relating to the unquantifiable benefits that came because of that debt expenditure, not because of the railway itself.

Its a very apt analogy, because it does indicate that there are many benefits which would come from both the NBN and a Large-Scale transit system like the Railworks; Often missed by a ‘Cost-Benefit Analysis’ or ‘Business Projections’.

Sometimes its better to wear the debt, even when it doesnt look like there will be one (via return on investment) because the benefits to the ‘greater good’ vastly outweight the net debt.

When it would give massive unquantifiable benefits back to the community, I’d imagine they would be. Unless people have a complete misunderstanding of what Tertiary education does to benefit the country, I’d imagine there would be people who’d whinge about their (Tertiary Educators) opinions.

A few years ago, we were regarded as having one of the best education systems in the world. Without broadband, how can that be possible ?

You also fail to mention a small detail. The NBN is not tax-payer funded.

Also, if we always learn from history, we would never vote for anyone, since we decide at one point that the incumbent did not do a good job. More specifically, we never vote for the coalition given their past record in telecommunication.

NBN is off budget/debt to hide the cost…ooh, and also on budget/taxpayer funded.

Just depends which day it is and which irrational Coalition supporter you are trying to rationally communicate with.

I’d argue again, that as the equity injections are NOT coming from general taxation revenue as clearly indicated by Brian Dalzell (i.e. not coming income taxes, it’s not coming from you and I the tax payer).

The Federal Government is currently the only investor in the NBN. So yes, it is currently taxpayer-funded. Eventually its return will be made from the private sector, however. But that return has not yet eventuated ;)

NBN would eventually become self funded creating a direct return AND the indirect returns from the flow on effects of the infrastructure itself. The other alternative just involves subsidising said businesses at which the tax payer will not expect a direct return of the funds. There is however the assumption of indirect returns in quality of life/business/etc. IF the businesses being subsidised do a good/honest job instead of abusing said subsidies.

So which is the lesser of evils? A tax-funded infrastructure that will eventually make direct AND indirect returns or a tax paid subsidy on businesses that makes no direct returns and the assumption of indirect returns?

Of course as with most arguments on this topic I find them rather moot because most people have already drawn a political line anyway and will *ALWAYS* find a way to refute your argument. Whether the response is based on fact however is another thing all together =P

I might have made the point badly but ultimately it will be self funding as it is an investment. Government subsidies don’t usually provide a financial return to the government.

In 2010-11, computer usage was 83% of households, an increase of 10% from the previous 4 years and internet home usage, 73%. Both these numbers will increase with the growing number of computer educated people replacing older generations. It is, therefore, difficult to consider that the NBN will not pay of itself when, should it be able to proceed unchanged, all households will be migrated to it.

I’ve gotta disagree sorry Renai. I know it’s getting into the nitty gritty and nit picking, but it is in fact NOT tax-payer funded. NO money is coming from the taxpayer funded budget. The money is coming from infrastructure equity pools, which may or may not have been tax payer funded (ie alot is from the power sell off) and then when that runs out, it will be borrowed by issuing bonds. AGAIN this does not affect the taxpayer budget in any way. These funds would’ve ONLY been used for infrastructure, not the budget and any infrastructure they were used on, would undoubtedly NOT returned a profit, unlike the NBN will eventually.

This is one of the PRIMARY sources of Coalition FUD, that the NBN can be cancelled and the money used elsewhere. But unless they plan to BORROW that money, it can’t be. The NBN is not taxpayer funded, as the taxpayer has no direct input or output to the funding model. It is only when the “taxpayer” pays for the service, they have input. And that is a user pays system- ie NOT every taxpayer will pay for it, only the one’s that use it.

So it is not taxpayer funded and will in fact make its’ return via a user pays system- JUST like what the Coalition want.

As a digression, this view of “who’s debt is it” is actually interesting when taken in context of similar operations internationally. The Singapore Government wholey owns a holding company called Temasek that basically owns half the world. Anyone familiar with this mob knows they are untouchable – way more independent than has ever claimed by NBN corp.

Now there was a recently reported comment by a senior exec from this company that reenforced this openly believed viewpoint when he stated they were completely independant of the government and could do what they like. In effect they could raise their own money and invest it how they like.

It then transpired that some enterprising young fool took it to one of the ministries whereupon it was revealed they had a completely different view of the matter. It was in fact there’s and they were in control and providing the ultimate underwriting of the company.

Now if this mob would just fail financially we’d see what that would mean in the real world for the Singaporean Government.

If you look at what they did it is more in line with the LNP plan. It wasn’t that government built the railways. Private enterprise was given and incentive to build them, a guaranteed return. They built them all over the place just to get money from the government.
Let’s hope the LNP are smarter than the Canadian government… then again…

Not at all. NBN Co is not free to rollout infrastructure to areas where no broadband is needed. They cannot duplicate infrastructure to get multiple payments from government. They are not guaranteed a profit by government. The Canadian government had no equity in the railway lines.
Having equity is a bad thing? Better than giving away money and not owning anything.

It would indeed be strange to guarantee your own profit on an investment.

But, why would you need to, if it goes pear-shaped you own a national fibre network and you can sell that.

But hey; the alternative is pay someone else to own a national fibre to the node network, and then pay them some more to provide access to people in rural areas to get better network speeds. and then keep paying them every year because thats the best way to get rural services!

If that isn’t accurate, please enlighten us Rico? Whats the alternative to the NBN?

How does this line of bankruptcy thinking sit with the always opposite and contradictory anti-NBN position of doom and gloom because we will all be mercilessly forced without choice onto the socialist monopoly?

“Yea, go ask a bankruptcy administrator about the recovery values for a $50bn fiber network pulling in pittance ADSL rates.”

Can you please stop this? Both those facts are crap and you know it. It is NOT costing $50 Billion and in fact, if you want to get REALLY technical, the fibre itself is costing $12 Billion. About the same value as the current copper network….which ONLY has that value because of the PEOPLE USING IT. IF no one used it, it would be worthless. Fortunately, all those with fixed lines now WILL use the NBN by 2022. Which means it IS worth something.

Secondly, READ THE CORPORATE PLAN. You keep saying how the funding model won’t work with “pittance ADSL rates”. Please, ACTUALLY say which numbers don’t add up in the plan???? Tell me, is it the ARPU?? The projections of speed required?? The cost of the network?? WHAT???

Stop gap solutions and does not address improving infrastructure at all.

“100mbit HFC”

Limited availability and substandard upload speeds. The next logical step is fibre but you have conveniently left that out, perhaps you could tell us when (what year) fibre should be rolled in your equation or are you suggesting rolling out HFC to that 93% before fibre and then upgrade to fibre later? (and yes I’m specifically asking you about HFC not FttN because as you know FttN wont do 100mbps to 100% even if it does it at all which I doubt)

+1. People look at offered possible speeds and assume everyone can get them. I know a guy who started on 96mbps and went to 35 in 6 months. He’s now asking for a price reduction because its not what he paid for….yeah, good luck with that….

I went through 4 different modems when we first signed up for the Optus Speedpack (100mbps), first two on the Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) DPQ3925 and then one Netgear CG3000, all of which were a complete joke. I had to switch to a separate router with the standalone modem Cisco DPQ3212 (also maybe rebranded Scientific Atlanta) to get anywhere close to a half-decent level of service on the network. Even if this is a hardware problem on my end, it was Optus supplying the hardware.

Also, don’t forget that Optus throttles the HFC network each weeknight at 6pm on the dot, because othewise it would be unable to handle the peak-time load. They might deny it, but it definitely happens.

“This aggressive expansion proved disastrous when immigration and supplies of capital all but disappeared with the outbreak of the First World War”

Somehow, you fail to mention this small detail. Do you expect another World War any time soon?

The another big difference was much of the project relied on government subsidies, which, as is often the case, got abused by some businesses. It was not, like the NBN, self-funding. In fact, this example would be a better analogy for what the coalition ‘seems’ to be proposing.

You are really clutching at straws to try and tie the NBN into an entirely different situation aren’t you.
Now the mining boom is the equivalent of a world war. Aren’t you just stretching things a bit much there?

Although one involved explosions, guns… oh and loss of life on a scale yet unmatched. Draining both lives and resources of a majority of the developed world. And one is a localised growth in the local economy due to increased demand for resources creating jobs and income…

The NBN could be what the author claims, but it won’t be. It won’t be because it was designed to be a national HIGH SPEED broadband network, not a NATIONAL broadband network. Precisely because it was designed to with high speed as more important than anything else it will be more expensive than ADSL, and because it is all the same people who haven’t signed up to ADSL won’t sign up for it.

What we’ve ended up with is the 21st century equivalent of a national high speed rail network that provided an alternative to air travel for the relatively few well off, rather than a national rail network that provided a better alternative to roads and cars for the majority.

As a taxpayer funded national infrastructure project the measure of the success of the NBN shouldn’t have been how fast it is, it should have been how many people would actually be connected to it, and all the numbers say it is failing dismally in that regard.

The author also fails to understand that completing secondary school and satisfying the core competencies as outlined by education policymakers does not require access to 100 different TV channels, Elsevier online, Lexis Nexis academic journal research database, etc.

Secondary school education is not “research-based”. It’s all about learning basic skills of reading, comprehension, problem solving, essay writing, etc. Heck, even undergraduate studies are not research based. You can get many degrees without researching a single thesis.

Like all pro-NBN articles, when it comes to substantiating the real world practical need for superfast broadband, the arguments fall flat with irrelevant, out -of- context analogies and empty vacuous declarations such as “they can download at 100 megabits per second — the gold standard for academic work”.

In all seriousness, what percentage of research PhDs require 100mbit internet access for research purposes??? Certainly not in the humanities department… or law. . . . or commerce . . .or even most scientific disciplines.

The ones that want to be viewing a thousand different streaming videos simultaneously across the department.

The ones that want to stream to a thousand different viewers live.

But hey; I guess all those lawyers humanities commerce and science students only need to look at books (since that is where all knowledge comes from). And those lectures they give could and would never be viewed by anyone else.

But lets ignore all that.

Whats the alternative policy Rico? Enlighten us what is proposed by others (or you?) instead of the NBN. Please tell me your preferred upgrade path for the nation. Preferably one that helps those people on 2 megabits or dialup (due to RIMs). I’ll take a broad overview if you want.

So just because we dont need something NOW that automatically means that we wont ever need it ?

Cisco’s most recent predictions indicate that internet usage in this country will dramatically increase within the next generation. Given that Wireless Spectrum cant support the Country’s need (and not just us – most developed nations) for internet, does that mean we shouldnt be looking at ‘A’ solution ?

While I see your point regarding costing vs implementation – what it doesnt do is plan the future. Whats to say that given our ever-increasing connected nature as humans, that we dont need more internet ?

The facts are this: People NEED internet, the current system doesnt provide this. Why engineer something for ‘Now’ – have it cost half as much but have to replace the whole system again for what could have been the original price in half the time ?

Not everyone needs 100mbit. Who ever said their did? Some do, some don’t. The NBN is not about everyone getting top speed. It is about everyone getting the REAL speed they need.

You also, seem to forget that many people cannot even get ADSL.

By the way, most education involves some sort of research. It is not only about the 3A’s. Furthermore, you ignore the potential of video conferencing for remote area teaching or even just downloading lesson or lecture videos.

So, what do think would be best? A patched up network that provide specific speed for selected targets or a network that does not have limitation and where people can decide which speed they need at a particular time?

100Mb is available because FTTH is easily capable of it. Should we build a network that isn’t capable of this? If so, what about future requirements? Do you drive a car limited to 60kmph because for the moment you don’t use the freeways?

You own a crappy old car (because its my example), 30 or so years old, that can go at 130kmh at its maximum. More than any speed limit you drive along at any rate.

I own a sleek new car (because its my example), that can go at 300kmh at its maximum. Again, more than any speed limit I come across in my regular driving habits.

Both can do that 110kmh along the freeway, but which is the better one to own? The old car, thats less efficient, takes longer to get up to the speed limit, and is clearly at the end of its functional life, or the new car, with its much better fuel efficient engine, better torque for acceleration, and significantly more features as part of its standard package?

I know too, the new fast car would be much more fun. But the NBN speed is not a gee whiz it’s 100Mb, I only need and I could have done it cheaper, it’s for future needs. If next year you knew you needed to drive at 300kph you would be mad to spend half its cost fitting a turbo charger to your old clunker to get it to do 150.

Yeah, its not a perfect analogy by any stretch of the imagination, was just trying to point out that at some point whats worked until now needs to be replaced :)

Your turbo charger addition is a good one though, and something like how I picture the Liberal plan, what there is of it. If they go with FTTN then their network will have parts that will need that turbocharger installed at some point, at great expense.

Buy a car now for $50,000 that does the job, and is ready for that future need, or buy a car for $40,000 that will need another $30,000 in the near future when those needs effect us… The $50,000 car just needs a $50 dongle to give us the future improvements.

The Liberals would have us believe the Labor plan isnt cost effective, when its actually their plan thats not cost effective.

“In all seriousness, what percentage of research PhDs require 100mbit internet access for research purposes??? Certainly not in the humanities department… or law. . . . or commerce . . .or even most scientific disciplines.”

If they don’t need a 100/40mbps plan they can get a 50/20, 25/5 or 12/1mbps plan. Problem solved. The NBN works.

I’m thinking of changing teams and become and anti-NBNer… I’d immediately become just like them wouldn’t I?

You know… more knowledgable about tech than Google or Cisco. Know more about broadband network roll outs than Quigley & Co. More about network plans/costings than McKinsey/KPMG or CitiGroup. More about the benefits of broadband generally than the OECD and UN. More about politics than everyone (bar the ultra conservatives of course) and obviously, more knowledgable about education than the educators.

Man, let’s just say these anti-NBN guys are self confessed authorities on fucking everything, who know more than the current impostors masquerading as experts in their fields… and just be done with it.

And all it takes to be like them.. is (add drum roll) – a small donation to/a life long oath to vote for the Coalition, plus closing one’s eyes tightly, placing one’s fingers snugly in one’s own ears and simply ALWAYS saying NO…!

‘The NBN could be what the author claims, but it won’t be. It won’t be because it was designed to be a national HIGH SPEED broadband network, not a NATIONAL broadband network. Precisely because it was designed to with high speed as more important than anything else it will be more expensive than ADSL, and because it is all the same people who haven’t signed up to ADSL won’t sign up for it.’

See recent take up rates – they’re contradicting your claims. Not only this, but people on ADSL wont have a choice but to move or to swap to a wireless service when the copper-based system is turned off.

More expensive? How ? You’ve obviously not seen any of the NBN plans, because they’re almost the same pricing / value as ADSL. At least on the NBN, you’d actually get a service – as opposed to the russian-roulette-esque system of ADSL we have now every time you move house.

‘What we’ve ended up with is the 21st century equivalent of a national high speed rail network that provided an alternative to air travel for the relatively few well off, rather than a national rail network that provided a better alternative to roads and cars for the majority.’

The majority ? You’re claiming a strawman arguement based on the assumption that you KNOW what the ‘majority’ want, use or need. How do you know this ? If the Network ISPs and Telco carriers cant predict this and rely on Cisco to provide these assertions, how do you know ?

‘As a taxpayer funded national infrastructure project the measure of the success of the NBN shouldn’t have been how fast it is, it should have been how many people would actually be connected to it, and all the numbers say it is failing dismally in that regard.’

So being behind estimated rollout-time is a bad thing ? Generally when you have to wait for the incumbent to get its arse into gear to agree to its seperation I’d imagine thats going to slow things down. Unless you want the more expensive NBN model where it was all done by aerial cable ? I dont. I want to know I can move house, get internet and be able to use it without worrying about congestion or reliability. Speed is everything if you want to do anything on the internet … unless you want us to go back to dial-up ?

Indeed, I find it most odd that when the NBN critics start with their stupid comments and say things like, what can I do on FttP I can’t do on ADSL? When I counter by saying, well what can you not do on dial-up, you can do on ADSL…and they say, now you are just being ridiculous…

Delimiter needs a sort of FAQ (FSF, frequenty stated falsehoods) to refer posters to. I understand why you said simply “false” in response to the assertions, because they have been brought up over and over and answered many times. If they weren’t just answered with “false” the reasons would be posted ad infinitum to every anti NBN poster (or those just posting the same things under their new aliases).
But for people new to the discussions it may seem that you and others (myself included) are just being dismissive of arguments when most are just simply tired of typing the same stuff over and over with the result usually leading to some ridiculous line of argument on the part of the perveyor of FUD.

“But for people new to the discussions it may seem that you and others (myself included) are just being dismissive of arguments when most are just simply tired of typing the same stuff over and over”

Exactly. But quite frankly I don’t care, if anyone wants to debate the NBN properly they can use facts to back up their claims or GTFO, it’s not my job to do it for them however I will call them out when the need arises until then “False” will suffice. I think more people should use this and save a heap of time, it’s all that’s required in these instances and when they figure they’ll need the aforementioned facts to back up their claims I think you’ll find most will simply disappear as they simply have none. More effort is required to sustain the lies/misconceptions and you can probably figure out (as they would) they’ll be caught out.

I don’t think a FAQ or FSF would make any difference to those people, to be honest. Anti-NBN people just aren’t interested in the facts, only in reinforcing their already-formed opinions. Of course, for people with a genuine interest in the reality of the NBN and surrounding issues, they will likely have the wherewithal to do the necessary research.

I don’t think so it would make a difference to them. They want the world to work in a certain way and just try to show it does dispite evidence to the contrary.

I was thinking of people who aren’t regular readers. They see:
“The NBN plans are way more expensive”
“false”

I was suggesting the quick “false” is appropriate because posting over and over to the same person or the same person with a different alias the same evidence is a waste of time. But for a one off reader it would be nice to see that evidence.

So rather than be dismissive with a 1 word response, stick a 1 liner in instead?

Some of us are prone to writing paragraphs in response, so it gets tiring doing the same over and over, but a simple 1 liner would at least point them in the right direction.

Something like: “False – its been shown repeatedly that prices will be the same or cheaper, look at Exetel. Oh, and dont forget the $30/month for a phone wont be needed either” would be enough to at least give them somewhere to fact check.

I was thinking just keep “false” but paste the link the FAQ where all the constantly mentioned BS could have a response. Saves typing it over and over. New readers could be directed to why it is false and you save time replying to yet another Tosh or alain alias.

I think it’s actually most apt to do as Hubert does… keeping in mind a lot of these questions are actually coming from (what would certainly appear to be) the same person (or small number of likeminded regulars) posting the same disproved bullshit under many different names.

So they already know…

And sadly, it pretty much sums up their warped logic/political subserviency, when they come here to argue, then have to limp off, beaten and bruised (metaphorically speaking) tail well and truly between legs. But because they simply are ill-equipped and too hung up by their ideologies to accept facts, they are compelled to return to try and try again, with even more absurd BS and more FUD…

Remember our friend, the one having a forced Delimiter holiday (no not Renai) who asked “when did the Coalition ever indicate the NBN/Broadband was a determining factor in them not gaining government?”

And when supplied Peter Reith’s (former deputy leader of the Liberal Party’s) election analysis, done for the Libs, by the Libs, which clearly highlights the worst electoral result for the Coalition in the NBN’s initial rollout area, Tasmania, in 40 years and an admission from them that the NBN was the major contributing factor, costing them at least one seat (Bass) and perhaps more… he still refused to accept the Libs analysis of the Libs and said it was done to death and he had already successfully refuted our NBN cheerleading in regards to this… Que?

FFS, question and keep the bastards honest, please. But accept reality (why argue over something like the above scenario), realise both sides of politics are in essence as shitty as the other… so we need to judge political policies on their merits, not by the party.

Anyway, back to the crux…

What I find telling is, 95% of the time (my guesstimate) when Hubert simply answers with “false”, the critics sill have no rebuttal anyway…LOL.

As such personally, I think it’s the answer they deserve and let’s face it that one solitary factual word, is one word more than they will give, when it comes to factual answers!

LOL, fair points. Just pointing out for those times where it is actually a newbie, a few extra words might make a difference. For the regular name-rotators, it doesnt hurt to continually give them something in return, just doesnt need the 4 paragraph thesis after so many posts.

Yeah, we could have a book that said what was true, and anyone who said anything that disagreed with that book would be abused and called stupid, and if they persist called a heretic and stoned and driven out of the city to live in the wilderness. No, wait, sorry, that’s already how its done with any “debate” on the NBN. Because to its supporters it is a religion with its own set of facts that can not be questioned.

The supporters of the NBN are afraid of a real debate. One where people can question, and challenge and look at whether things need to be changed before the train crash occurs, not wait until after it has happened then blame someone else.

Really Gordian? And what debate are we actually running from? Do we run when asked about FTTN? No, we provide references showing how it will take just as long cost almost as much and will need replacing by the time it is finished. Do we run from questions about wireless being better? No, we provide references for how wireless is a capacity limited technology and far too expensive at the moment or for the foreseeable future to replace the high data usage at home. Do we run from questions of funding? No, we explain and show how only those that use the NBN pay (user pays, just like what the Coalition wants) and that through this system it will return money to the government who can payoff the debt they required to finance the NBN so as to NOT take money from the taxpayer budget.

Please, enlighten me to exactly what debate we are not engaging in? What questions/points do you want to raise that haven’t been debated?

“Yeah, we could have a book that said what was true”
Wouldn’t that be nice! How about the coalition policy?

“to its supporters it is a religion with its own set of facts that can not be questioned.”

It is not a religion and facts can be questioned but intelligently and backed by some sort of evidence.

“The supporters of the NBN are afraid of a real debate. One where people can question, and challenge and look at whether things need to be changed before the train crash occurs, not wait until after it has happened then blame someone else.”

Your one contribution, so far, was replied to and you obviously didn’t like the answer. I did not see you try to argue whether you thought the answer was incorrect and, if so, why? Looks to me that you are the one afraid of real debate. Additionally, could possibly elaborate on your idea of a train crash. Not only am I not afraid, I would love to hear it.

The problem for people like me is that I am not here to pray to NBN altar but to hear what people have to say, so that I can have an informed judgement. You question about HD was certainly of interest to me and I am also interested in the truth. Unfortunately, all I have to go by, at this point, is your initial point and a reply to it and you spitting the dummy. Not that useful.

Until such times as those who are opposed to the NBN listen to the experts (not us) and stop having excuses (vested interest, paid for report or whatever) to simply ignore such expert views, I find it the height of hypocrisy to make the claims you do against people such as me, who simply see the NBN as advantageous to ALL Aussies.

If wanting what is best for all Aussies makes me a religious NBN nut, so be it. Because I’d rather be that, than a visionless puppet of politics, who could not care about anyone but themself and their party’s ideology, as I have found 99.9% of those who oppose the NBN… feel free to be considered part of the 0.1%

“Because to its supporters it is a religion with its own set of facts that can not be questioned.”

The opposite is true. People in favor of the NBN use facts to back up their claims. It’s not often that those who oppose the NBN do the same, it’s usually a worn out political or emotional argument they are trying to pass as facts. You seem to be doing it right now…

“The supporters of the NBN are afraid of a real debate.”

The opposite is true. Post facts to back up your claim “it will be more expensive than ADSL” to continue the “real debate”

Having read parts of his biography, he got average grades as a student but had the right person to recommend him for the scholarship. Then spent most of his time in sporting pursuits trying to get the Oxford blue more than studying.

“What we’ve ended up with is the 21st century equivalent of a national high speed rail network that provided an alternative to air travel for the relatively few well off, rather than a national rail network that provided a better alternative to roads and cars for the majority.

Err, no…

What we’ve ended up with is the 21st century equivalent of a national high speed rail network (glad you guys now can see how ridiculous the Ferrari/Rolls Royce references were) that provides an alternative to the now obsolete shitty and in some cases non-existent current rail network that now provides a “better product”, for “everyone” at “the same or less cost to everyone per month”.

It’s commonly (outside of the anally conservative circle) referred to as progress!

The problem with Australian society as a whole – is that because everyone pays tax, they automatically think they’re allowed to have an opinion on something they may not understand. Just because they cant see the immediate benefit, doesnt mean its not there or unquantifiable. Too many conservatives, not enough forward thinkers.

You start with the appearance of an argument.
Avoid important points.
Don’t answer pertinent questions (what is your plan Rico? Change name as required)
And when all is lost, call people who don’t share with your views, leftists (or socialists or communists)
Then gradually disappear, only to reincarnate later under a different name.

If I were you I would plead with Malcom Turnbull and Tony Abbott, to first agree about what they are going to do about the NBN and tell you (and us) how it would work. Who knows? Your contribution might become useful. I am sure that whatever it is, you will tell us how wonderful it is and rectify any misconception we may have,

You may be tempted to suggest that it is too far from the election to reveal the master plan. Remember, however, that Tony Abbott is not shy about his views and plans regarding Asylum seekers, the carbon tax, the mining tax, parental leave…etc. Two subjects he remains vague about are the NBN and workplace relation. Wonder why?

Due to their being no actual evidence to suggest the NBN will be anything other than a boon for all Aussies, in many different ways, those opposed for whatever their reasons, need to say something…anything to suggest otherwise!

15 years ago when I went to Uni, I had to study from home, Uni was a 5 hours round trip away and I was a single parent with 2 kids. I joined Uni through the post, I sent my assignments through the post and received them back through the post and I received by text books by the post. And I studied at the local library with old books that were outside the maximum 5 years publication date.

My 2 kids study at Uni, they joined up by the internet, their assignments are received and once completed are sent to Uni by the Internet and they buy their text books over the Interent and they are sent to them by the post. The assignments are checked for plagirism by some software over the internet. Most of the information they study is with in the 5 years maximum publication date.

Its a completely different model of education delivery in only 10 to 15 years all because of the Internet. No running around trying to get your assignments off in the post with a couple of days to spare for postage, no studying out of date referencing material, no car or or fuel use plus the time driving etc. Once the optical fibre is layed kids can watch and engage in lectures in real time, they can teleconference with lectures and brain storm with fellow students and many other things that Im not currently aware of, this is a revolution in education delivery.

Rico is yet another tosh handle Alex. The telling signs have shown up again… not hard to figure out when you realise much like coaltion members he doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to the NBN.

Have you BEEN to university? The University of Wollongong has exactly that system in place. They were one of the first to introduce it. The system covers main plagiarising sites like Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Britannica.

It is not all knowing, neither is it particularly sophisticated. It simple marries up blocks of text in assignments with blocks of text on the internet. It’s REALLY not a complicated system. More complex systems can detect words in different orders, but again, it is simple search strings. Not complex at all.

How about you apply that superior mind to answering some of the questions we have asked you about the Coalition’s policy on broadband and why you think the current NBN funding won’t work?

when my daughter first used it her score was 19% then she asked me to help her add page numbers to her assignment which I did and sent it back to her this time when she got it checked her score had changed to 32% just because of some page numbers.

Mmmm, it was actually something we at the student guild complained about when they introduced it at UOW, because it seemed rather flawed. But to give them credit, they worked hard on it and it did improve.

I don’t disagree with it. But it needs to be MORE sophisticated so it can actually tell the difference between pages numbers a plagiarism…..

Hi Rico
if you doubt me just do a search for plagiarism checker, my daughter had to get her assignments checked by the one recommended by her uni (CQU Central Queensland University), once its checked its automatically sent on to the uni, I think she said she has to get a score of less tha 30%, if higher its a fail.
She also users a private company software it cost $25 for 5 checks, to check her work before she users the uni one because if you are over you dont get a chance to correct it if you use the one recommended by the uni.

My goodness! The anti-NBN shills are out in force today. Absolutely lots of this stuff.

I often wonder if there’s an out-of-sight group somewhere that actively coordinates these mind-numbing attacks. “Okay, [insert name here], you are to go to Delimiter today and make spurious claims, provocative statements, factually incorrect ‘facts’, and recycle our previously rebutted arguments against the NBN. Whatever you do, don’t answer any questions, don’t change your mind about anything, don’t learn anything new, and keep hammering away mindlessly on your monomania to the point of tears. We’re still looking for someone to go and do the same at Whirlpool; who is free this afternoon?”

But I’m fairly certain they’d just argue each other for the sake of it, hence destroying any group before it could form….much like the Coalition…..

Seriously though, I honestly don’t understand the mindset of “Your facts are worthless because I don’t believe them.” I know I’m stubborn, but show me a fact that clearly states I’m wrong, with sources and evidence and I’ll back down. Apparently this is not a common trait….

Interesting theory Elijah B. but I think you give them way too much credit.

If they were actually intelligent enough to coordinate such attacks, they’d ergo be intelligent enough to recognise just how foolish them, their attacks and their obvious motives come across/actually are…

yeah I’m gonna have to agree with Alex on this one. I’m sure the ones on Delimiter are just your regular garden variety progress haters and/or coalition apologists… just using multiple names… If you were talking about a site like The Australian that is a different matter of course…

A Major element of the anti NBN Point of view in my opinion is a Me Me or I,I mindset. Assuming only one individual user at any time
The NBN is designed around not only being business capable, but also for FAMILIES. It caters for multiple simultaneous users using more than just browsing or using facebook or emails, that is why the higher capacity which is what the “Speed” really is about, having reasonable capacity for each user
It is well and good having great access within the institution, but much of the need for access is from the residence

I’ve got a uni student in the house and it is my Mrs and I. The uni student (my sister) does a large portion of study (including assessments) online.

This is where the problem comes in. When all three of us are in the household and say, my Mrs wants to watch something on ABC iView, my sister is doing an online assessment, and I want to play Diablo 3, it goes like this:-

My Mrs can watch something on ABC iView OR my sister can do her online assessment OR I can play Diablo 3.

To put it in the simplest terms possible, a FttP/FttH NBN will remove the OR aspect and we can all do what we need/want.

To make it nice and simple for the coalition and their shills (because simple is about all you can hope to understand):-

Your crusade to hold back this nations telecommunications for not just the people of today, but future generations (ie tomorrows doctors, engineers, lawyers etc) is counter productive for everyone and will be likened to ‘the political party that dragged Australia back to the dark ages’.

Oh yes, I have noticed that. Try to point out that it’s for everyone and future generations and you get rubbish like accusations of being a communist or “Think of the kids” or some such rubbish. I am sure you could spot these people out on the road. They will be the ones hogging the right hand lanes ignoring the ambulance with sirens blaring behind them trying to get through.

It’s all about the context. ‘Think of the kids’ without context is rubbish.

Much like ‘the NBN is waste’ without any context is rubbish.

There are endless comments on here where someone is downplaying the importance of the NBN through the use of terms such as ‘the NBN is waste’ but without context. Tell me why you think the NBN is waste (if you can).

Or better yet, tell me why you think the LNP solution is better. Particularly I’d like to see focus on overall value for money (this means future value), the flexibility of their solution (can it be easily upgraded – what research and development is happening to improve the network experience over copper), and perhaps what they believe the life expectancy of such a network would be before it will need to be replaced.

Sadly the best comment that even tries to state a fact or opinion will be:
“In this day and age only an academic left-wing ivory tower communist could possibly think a government should ever be involved in building infrastructure”

I have a friend, who I like to think is fairly intelligent, he is a liberal voter and develops some pretty specialized web-based software for education purposes. He is the only one that has ever said a single thing against the NBN that even has a remote chance of being accurate.

His position, is: Yes, he can understand the fibre on the NBN would be awesome, but even his horrible rural ADSL (he gets 6 megabits) doesn’t justify the expenditure.

Basically, he doesn’t think it is worth the money. This is a 100% valid point of view. The problem? no political party is pushing this as a policy. What they want to do, is spend a bucket load of cash on an alternative, an alternative that is a known waste of money.

IMO, if you are going to “waste” money, at least please buy something that has value!
Using their ferrari analogy.
It would be like upgrading your mates commodore with 40,000 dollars worth of electric motor and batteries, instead of paying 120,000 dollars for your own Tesla.

The Telsa will do what you want better, and ultimately, when you want to sell it off, you can! You can’t on the other hand sell your mates commodore, its his car!

This is a question for everyone…
Has anybody played a YouTube video on a 50plus inch TV directly off the Internet in real time without out it stopping and starting again in full definition,
I reason I ask this is, that thats the type of technology that we have in our homes these days thats very common. In my area I can only get wireless even though Im on the Gold Coast (built up area) whats the point of this technology if we cant use it to its full capacity. This is why we need the NBN and its optical fibre (granted some places will only get satellite and fixed wireless) but for the vast majority our comms system is holding our current technology behind let alone the technology of today and tomorrow.

I watch TV on my PC with the tuner in another room connected to it over the LAN so I know exactly how much bandwidth it takes to transmit a full HD image stream. It is about 14 Mbits/second. And using MPEG4 coding, as you should be over the internet, it is less than half of that. So if you have any sort of reasonable ADSL connection and you are still having problems with the image stopping and starting its because the server at the other end can’t supply data fast enough to supply you and all the other people asking for it. However super fast a connection you have won’t fix that, it’ll make it worse, because it’ll result in even more people like you trying to use the internet to deliver real time full HD. An Australia-wide optical fibre network will just move the choke point to the international undersea cables and servers.

I’m sorry Gordan, but that is not correct. What you are talking is compressed HD or rather, the RESOLUTION of HD, but not the bitrate. Both together make up full HD. Full HD is what you get on Bluray. That is, MPEG 2 or TS at around 28-32mbps.

You may be happy with 7mbps mpeg 4. Many people aren’t. The difference between that and full HD is night and day on a +40 inch TV. Even on a 30 inch TV. There are many times 7mbps mpeg 4 is fine. Catchup TV. On a Tablet or laptop. But not on an HD TV.

If you think there is no difference, I would challenge you to play a bluray right after playing that ‘HD’ TV show of yours. I think your eyes will weep at the difference. Particularly for sport and movies.

And most servers are only setup to.stream 7-10mbps. That is because that is what the vast majority of Australians can get. We have no issue upgrading, but people need to be able to achieve the speeds first. Also, we have no issue with international links. I can give you references if you like, but briefly, we have approximately 18 times the bandwidth we use now available. AND that’s being upgraded right now to over 40 times. It’s not an issue. Servers will be upgraded, links are already being so. You’re making a mountain out of a teaspoon of salt.

Also to get the full benefits of remote classroom interaction or medical visits or just to put that video on you-tube in the first place in a reasonable time you need that bandwidth going the other direction also.

Just to add some meat to HC’s “False” statements (someone above complained we should explain more)

“However super fast a connection you have won’t fix that, it’ll make it worse, because it’ll result in even more people like you trying to use the internet to deliver real time full HD.”False.

reason: 2 parts.
Easy to understand one: Content producers will host it locally, to ensure you use their service instead of their remotely-hosted competitor. Why? to maximise ad revenue from you. (you like the experience/quality of AusTube therefore you go there, instead of internationalTube which hosts it overseas and is buffering all the time. AusTube makes more money.)
Hard to understand one: When you buy internet access, your quota, bandwidth and expected usage is a known figure. (it all averages out in the end). Your ISP buys bandwidth that meets the projected usage of all of its customers. Therefore on average, every customer receives adequate bandwidth. (if an ISP sees it can’t meet international demand, it raises prices and increases available bandwidth. Or lowers quotas, which is the same thing on average)

“An Australia-wide optical fibre network will just move the choke point to the international undersea cables and servers.”
Solution: upgrade “undersea cables and servers” when the need rises.
As demand increases, so do the financial incentives to upgrading international cables. (also, as I understand it we are no where near capacity on our international links).

That’s why they are constantly upgrading it. BTW, the choke point is how much capacity the ISPs are provisioning not the capacity of the current links. Go with a quality ISP and that choke point magically disappears for the most part.

Anyway on topic.
Having work on a School of the Air studio project about 7 years ago it was amazing what they could do with what little bandwidth they had available in remote stations and communities. I took some of my year 11 classes via NT Open Education Center because specific courses weren’t available at my school while the course was good there was a lack of classroom interaction which was a disadvantage. As part of the project I got a close at the system and used and got to sit in on a couple of classes. It was a vast improvement over through the mail learning. I also got to see what was available when there was the extra bandwidth which which that with student coming into to classrooms at central sites once a month and could see difference the extra bandwidth made in interaction. The developer had a long list of features to implement as bandwidth became available.

interactive and remote learning are a big advantage of improved bandwidth as is one of the reason S.Korea funded the bandwidth improvements they did. They faced of challenge of educating a huge population with only limited space and lectures. We have a problem with geographically dispersed populations if you can’t get the student to the classroom take the classroom to the student. This does already happen in a limited way within universities where the bandwidth is available.

It is not just higher education and schools but skill upgrading for staff within the work place, through seminars, interactive training and videos. Often what is provided is restricted by bandwidth at the client end why even offer a service that requires a 12/1 connection when the majority of your clients don’t even have that available. There are already services that use this bare minimum connection available just not being offered by Australian companies because there market doesn’t exist because the minimum connection required isn’t available to the vast majority of the population.

The NBN isn’t about FTTH or wireless it is about ensure every single Australian gets a service built to a standard so that when a business/education/government department/left-wing ivory tower scribbler have a server to deliver every Australian can be included and not get exclude be they live at number 41 and not 40 on their street, or rained two days ago.

The LNP have failed to tell us two important things what they are going to deliver and how they are going to pay for it.
By what they are going to deliver I don’t care about FTTN or FTTH I care about 12/1 to every Australian with a planned for upgrade path to higher speeds.
As for pay for it so far taking all LNP “policies” into account our future government will be collecting less taxes and spending more while mysteriously generating a budget surplus. At least labor has a plan to have the project pay for itself even if you don’t believe it will and for us to actually own the asset it is a damn sight better than vague reference of subsidies, even if it is cheaper you still own nothing. It is like renting it might be immediately cheaper but you still own nothing and have no asset base to grow off, only an on going expense.

Following the discussion about people like Rico or whatever his name. I have taken the liberty of compiling Rico’s contribution to the thread. I apologise in advance for the length of the post but it makes fascinating reading when put together. It’s all here in black and white: Shit stirring, criticism, and triviality. This only thing missing is something useful or informative.

“History repeats itself. Shit happens. Some people never learn the lessons of history.
Also doesn’t surprise me that institutions that are heavily reliant on taxpayer funding for their existence are supportive of big taxpayer-funded projects like Labor’s NBN.

The NBN is not tax-payer funded.
LOL

You mean Canada guaranteed Railway Corp’s borrowings in the same way Labor is guaranteeing NBNco’s borrowings?
You’re right, that’s a difference, in the case of the NBN, the Government has both debt AND EQUlTY exposure.
LoL

Since the Labor Govt is 100% shareholder of NBNco, it’d be a very peculiar thing if you can “self-guarantee” ;)))
ADSL1 — > ADSL2 —> 100mbit HFC

“This aggressive expansion proved disastrous when labour and supplies of capital were heavily strained with the outbreak of the once in a century mining boom of unprecedented proportions”

Secondary school education is not “research-based”. It’s all about learning basic skills of reading, comprehension, problem solving, essay writing, etc. Heck, even undergraduate studies are not research based. You can get many degrees without researching a single thesis.
Like all pro-NBN articles, when it comes to substantiating the real world practical need for superfast broadband, the arguments fall flat with irrelevant, out -of- context analogies and empty vacuous declarations such as “they can download at 100 megabits per second — the gold standard for academic work”.
In all seriousness, what percentage of research PhDs require 100mbit internet access for research purposes??? Certainly not in the humanities department… or law. . . . or commerce . . .or even most scientific disciplines.

It’s called “the little red book”.

He has a strong interest in Indigenous and Digital Education issues–both domestically and globally. He is a director of Open Universities Australia

It’s great to see all these non-accountants discussing accounting issues. Except that they get pretty much everything wrong.

It’s also amusing to see the Libs have taken notice of Delimiter and sent their proxies over to comment. But guys, please state your allegiances up front – some of us get sick of reading lies, and would prefer to see useful comments.

I always find reading lies interesting. Frustrating and often soul-destroying (when they’re the lies other people believe over facts) but interesting nonetheless. It’s good practice for when someone tries to have a go at me over the NBN and they REALLY have no idea what they’re saying…. :D

Most of the accounting issues aren’t exactly rocket science. Working as a kid/teenager with my CPA father and writiing various accounting and payroll packets over the years pretty much exposes you to the basics. I probably would have ended up and accountant if it wasn’t so mind numbingly boring.

Stephen, True.
Reminds of when the Accountants and business managers sacked Steve Jobs from Apple.
Remind me what were the consequences, wasn’t it Bill Gates that had to save Apple from Bankruptcy under the skilful control of the corporate managers and accountants. There is a correlation. Recognise your strengths weaknesses and limitations.
In relation to the NBN accountants are at best part of the support team, Not the determinators of direction. Learn from the past

“wasn’t it Bill Gates that had to save Apple from Bankruptcy under the skilful control of the corporate managers and accountants”

Not really. At the time, Apple had more cash in the bank than Microsoft. What Bill Gates and Microsoft did at the time was to send a message of confidence in Apple to the market by agreeing to develop Office for the Mac. The actual investment amount was less than $200m, and wasn’t held for a huge length of time.

Tom
Why had the market lost confidence?
The products just weren’t there, they still had smart people left, but no direction , had become just another beancounter run business.
Doesn’t change the fact that Apple was going downhill fast, becoming just another Commodore etc. on it’s way to join the others that had shown promise.
What rescued them was bringing back Steve Jobs and restructuring the management team, restructuring the business managers and accountants to their critically important functional support roles. Which is more the way it is now.. Much is made of the manner Apple has redefined Business management.
Consider Commodore and the Amiga, ground breaking and changed PC design. During the 80’s recession they laid off their creative innovative staff, keeping their management and financial team. How many have heard the name.?
We can learn more from failure than success, if we have an open mind, discard ideology and belief systems and excuses honestly evaluating what happened, why? and the consequences. Learn from that and take the lessons on board.
We are at a watershed moment in the world. Post WW2 was a crucial watershed and the political decisions of the time limited and crippled our economy. The 80’s was another post the oil crisis, once again. we just sweep those lessons under the table and here we are , the usual suspects having learnt nothing from the past taking the same path with the NBN, a key element for any hope for our nations future economy.
Much is made of take up rate, the word is Townsville is 24%. NZ which is private built as commercial enterprise with infrastructure competition is 1.8%. FTTN too expensive as high ROI required, upgrade to FTTP from FTTN costs thousands for the customer and is more expensive, similar elsewhere in the world where it is being done on the same basis as the coalition is proposing.. It is not the actual infrastructure that is the problem worldwide it is the business model. Our NBN overcomes those issues, however it does have some flaws. However economic compromises needed to be made and best bang for buck for the economy and it will work if all early indications hold true as they appear to do.

Once upon a time during the Golden Age of State Monopolies, telco networks belonged to the People, but the People having long suffered from the evil Subversiveness of greedy Private Enterprise, it’s now time that telco assets be rightfully returned to the Collective. The State, as the People’s Benefactor, is the Rightful and Just owner of telco infrastructure and is best positioned to spread the joys of multi-HD video channelling and other Social Goods of faster internet to the digitally impoverished Masses.

Fear not the promised rise under Labor of a powerful State swallowing evil Private Enterprise before it; instead your worries should rest in what the ignorant and corrupt Federal Electorate will do to Our Saviour, the ALP, in a year’s time:

It is obvious that we aren’t dealing with a rationalism, we are dealing with extremism and as such there is absolutely no hope for rational correspondence.

It is now clear why such people will never admit to even one percent (pun intended) of the NBN being worthwhile, because it’s not the NBN they oppose, it’s purely the politics, due to their own extreme views.

And here I was thinking these people were simply Coalition sheep – what an understatement.

Err, no one is saying private enterprise are any more evil than government, although one impudent child is again chucking a tantrum and arguing the flip side.

Both have their evils, but when private enterprise refuse to do their bit (due to no profits) that’s when governments needs to step in… like with the NBN.

Is that really so hard to understand. let alone accept?

I guess too, the commie NBN’s banning of comrade Huawei, is all just a commie smoke screen *rolls eyes*

Anyway, I’ll post this “once again” for you (I believe this is now the 3rd time, under 3 of your two dozen different names) since you are compelled to continue this, what is imo, the stupidest of stupid, line of commenting.

Anyway. It took you all this time to come up with this rubbish. If you really see Labor as communists, I can only think of three plausible reasons:
a) You are a complete idiot.
b) Politically, you would have to be to the right of Hitler or Mussolini.
c) Getting sick of you alias and want to be kicked out, so you can take my advice about calling yourself w..k..r. in the future.

Wouldn’t be nice if your coalition idols could finally got their act together on what their policy is. You might (I still have my doubts) come up with something remotely intelligent to say.

quote: “In almost every respect it was an anti-intellectual and atheoretical movement, emphasizing the will of the charismatic dictator as the sole source of inspiration of a people and a nation”

Compare the chilling similarities to the NBN debate, where Malcolm Turnbull’s objective but unfavourable financial and economic analyses of Labor’s NBN is dismissed or derided merely as “unfounded logical progression” or “hypothetical conjecture”, etc. A specific example of this “anti-intellectualism” and “anti-theory” zeitgeist here:

Also, set against this “anti-rationalist” mindset amongst NBN supporters is the veneration of senior NBNco personnel to charismatic sainthood status, putting them on a moral pedestal and imbuing there with superior, idealistic qualities in terms of the probity of their actions because their work is beyond reproach, since “everything they do is for the Good of the Nation”. To the point where the “Will” of the CEO (in executing the project) alone is apparently enough to counteract the validity of any negative criticisms of the NBN.

Scary, isn’t it?

—————————————————————————————————————
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without knowing it happened.”
Norman M. Thomas (Leader, US Socialist Party, 1948)

As Our Great Leader wisely proclaimed at the last Great Conference of the People’s Consultative Committee, “freedom of speech and of expression is not a right, but a Social Privilege and a matter of great Social Responsibility”.

l shall immediately refer this grave matter to the General Secretary of the Culture and Arts Bureau as a matter of utmost importance, and petition that this Traitor of the People be swiftly arrested and imprisoned for sedition and conspiracy to put unclean thoughts in the impressionable minds of our intellectually-feebler Comrades.

This Man is a Great Danger to Our Digital Marxist Revolution and must be despatched to Siberia on the first available cargo train! l trust Our Culture Secretary will be in complete agreement once the relevant matters are put before him.

This is why, there is no point even attempting to answer his provocations. He cannot come up with anything intelligent. Therefore, he needs to disrupt to get attention. Just like an annoying child. The best way is to ignore it. Otherwise, the child keeps going.

At the moment, he thinks he has got a bite, so, he thinks in on a roll.

My purpose today is to make just two main points: (1) To show why Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And (2) to show why socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.

There is nobody, literally nobody — this is the telecommunications version of Cuba. You know, Cuba is the last communist state. Oh, I stand corrected, there’s North Korea too. See, Stephen Conroy doesn’t even have a North Korea to his Cuba. He’s the one and only. There is nobody else with Stephen Conroy in terms of extravagance and government intervention. He is the most singular individual in that respect.

Comrade Observer,

As vividly described in the venerable bible, “The Socialist Encyclopaedia of Australian History”, the greatest political tragedy in the history of Our Socialist Commonwealth was the dissolution of the Australian Communist Party by that Capitalist Running Dog and traitorous British Imperial Agent, Bob Menzies.

I’d say it’s time that we return that favour and ban the LNP from participating in electoral contests and relegate extremists like the Sitting Member for Wentworth to the political sidelines.

Rico
In bringing Hitler into the discussion as a Socialist with intimations of communism you display your absolute ignorance. Remember Trade Unionists and Communists were shipped to the concentration camps. Pre Hitler Germany was destitute and impoverished with a defunct antiquated industrial base, Suddenly massive funds were invested in new factories and industrial development. Germany was banned from technology that could be used for warfare. Amongst the supporters were most of the US’s major industrialists and wealthy republicans , Henry Ford, Randolph Hearst, also supporters from European Nobility including the King of England. The technology for the steel for their Panzers came from US Steel, The technology for the leaded petrol for their Panzers came from Standard Oil. All a matter of record
What defeated Germany was their campaign against those evil Russian Communists, it decimated their military and their military resources and supplies. It was the pay off for the support, destroying the nasty communist threat. Which raises another point where did the funds, equipment etc come from to supply a “peasant army that defeated one of the greatest military forces in Europe (Russia), why ensure no descendants or claimants to throne of Imperial Russia? to establish Communism, No one expected crazy peasants and revolutionaries to be able to hold a large Nation together, they did better than that and became a threat to the establishment worldwide. The plotting had backfired and the wealthy prize had been lost

I only gave 3 plausible reasons. The one I really favour is the first one (a)

Comments are closed.

Book now available

Written by Delimiter Publisher Renai LeMay, The Frustrated State is the first in-depth book examining of how Australia’s political sector is systematically mismanaging technological change and crushing hopes that our nation will ever take its rightful place globally as a digital powerhouse and home of innovation.

Welcome! We were an energetic and engaged community of Australians who worked with or who were interested in technology -- all sorts of IT professionals, IT managers, CIOs, tech policy-makers and tech enthusiasts.